9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1136 - AT - Central ExciseGoods re-exported under bond - failure to produce proof of export - N/N. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June 2001 - Held that - The procedure prescribes that the merchant-exporter is required to obtain CT-I certificate from the Central Excise officers concerned against which goods are supplied without payment of duty and for which bond is required to be furnished. It is the merchant-exporters who are required to pay the duty on such goods, along with interest, if the same are not exported - the contentions of the appellant that they are not responsible for failure to comply with procedure on the part of the merchant-exporter is tenable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Duty demand on goods claimed to be exported under bond due to failure to produce proof of export
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI pertains to four appeals consolidated into a common order. The impugned orders-in-appeal dated 22nd May, 2014, confirmed the duty demand on goods, namely patent and propriety medicines, which were claimed to have been exported under bond but lacked proof of export. The appellant argued that they were not obligated to comply with such conditions and that the responsibility of proof of export lies with the issuers of CT-I certificate. The original demand amounting to Rs. 16,22,786 was reduced to Rs. 3,92,661 upon the production of proof of exports totaling Rs. 1,52,000. However, amounts related to specific appeals were still outstanding. The Authorized Representative relied on the mandatory requirements outlined in notification no. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June 2001, which stipulates export within six months from the factory clearance date. The procedure mandates that merchant-exporters obtain CT-I certificates from Central Excise officers for supplying goods without duty payment under bond. The duty liability falls on the merchant-exporters, and non-compliance may result in duty payment along with interest. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that they should not be held responsible for the merchant-exporter's procedural lapses, leading to the duty liability being deemed unsustainable. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, relieving the appellant from the duty demands imposed due to the failure to produce proof of export for the goods claimed to have been exported under bond.
|
